The commish is not liking the idea of giving closers any more value, in which this was his response:

OK, some owners have made positive replies regarding the increased value for a closer. It seems the time has come for me to speak about the opposite.

In no way should a save in our league be equal to a win. That's preposterous!!!

Here's a little something you should be aware of:

There are 30 teams in the MLB. Let's assume they all use 5 starters and 1 closer per team. That's 150 starters and 30 closers. A ratio of 5:1 starter to closer.

In our league, 4 closers finished in the top 20 pitchers point-wise in 2006. That's 16 starters and 4 closers. A ratio of 4:1.

In essence I feel that our closers are a bit OVER-valued. This is proven above. Basically 30 starting pitchers in the league are useless, because even the worst closer would be better than the bottom 30 starters. That's 1/5th, or 20% of starting pitchers.

Here's an example: Let's say that we give closers 1 more point for a save, just one, a total of 5 pts per save. That would give Joe Nathan 36 additional points, making him the 3rd most valuable pitcher in the league for 2006. That's not right in my book. Not by a long shot. He would never be drafted that early in any league.

Seems like he makes some good points, is this refutable, or do you still see an argument to increase the value by 1 point?

I don't think there's a right answer. It depends on what your goal is for the league scoring. If you are trying to balance the categories than Saves are undervalued. If you are trying to balance the value of positions than it depends on what measurement you are using. If you are trying to roughly mirror the value in Roto than I think you're current setup looks fairly accurate.

Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey

You will find that a lot of people believe that top closers should NEVER be worth close to the top starters. What you have now doesn't seem too bad either.

In most drafts, I find that the top RP are often among the top 5. In the Sporting News mock draft, the #2 pitcher (taken in round 2) was Frod. You can agree or disagree with this value, but it provides an example where others clearly disagree with your commish. It then followed Nathan, Rivera, Carpenter. Or on ESPN last year, first R was taken at #6 (although in earlier years Rivera and Gagne went in rounds 2-3). Staying with ESPN, RP were taken as 8 of the first 20 pitchers, also refuting his logic.

He hasn't really proven anything. I would also tend to add a point for saves, although it is always a bit tricky making changes in keepers if someone had a strategy of sticking with starters. Clearly, it would not be in such a person's interest to change. Does the commish fit this?

He's also exaggerating. A win is worth 10 points. A save would still only be half of that. And what the 150 +30 things proves escapes me. SO what. There are only 30 SS in the league (using his logic), should there only be a certain number in the top 20? Of course not.

So we come back to what appears to be the core of his reasoning - that RP just shouldn't be worth as much as SP. This is where the discussion will probably need to go if you want to convince him, although he sounds pretty firm. Ultimately, the points system will reflect your collective beliefs on player value.